HATONN: THE EARTH'S MOON IN THE GENESIS EVENT
CREATOR GOD ATON/HATONN
As to creationists of this latter day--they tell you that it appears that "creation" took place some 10,000 or 22,000 years ago. That alone should give you ample reason to suspect error--there is, for one thing, a lot of years between 10,000 and 22,000. But it does indicate that the "cycles" as outlaid have a large part to play in the projections of possibilities. Since you have PHYSICAL PROOF of elders beyond 22,000 years past--that would take the edge off the "whole truth". However, when one considers the truth of the presentation and "creation" methods of God and projection of manifested experience--anything COULD be possible??!! Therefore we have to look first at probabilities and then take higher knowledge as viewed by elder travelers and work from that perception.
Perhaps in overreaction to this "Creationism", scientists have considered the biblical tale of Genesis as a subject of faith, not fact. And yet, chelas, when one of the rocks brought back from the Moon by Apollo astronauts turned out to be almost 4.1 billion years old, it was nicknamed "the Genesis rock" so who is efforting to fool who? When a tiny piece of green glass shaped like a lima bean turned up in lunar soil samples gathered by the Apollo 14 astronauts, the scientist dubbed it "the Genesis bean". It therefore appears that, in spite of all the objections and reservations, even the scientific community cannot escape the age-old faith (or perhaps truth), belief, inner feelings, or perhaps some "genetic memory" of the species called Mankind, that a primordial truth underlies the narrative of the Books considering Genesis.
However the Moon became a constant companion to Earth--the various theories must be examined. It, like Earth, belonged to the same Solar System, and the histories of both go all the way back to its creation On Earth, erosion caused by the forces of nature as well as by the life that has evolved on it has obliterated much of the evidence bearing on that creation, to say nothing of the cataclysmic events that changed and revamped the planet. But the Moon, so it was assumed, had remained in its pristine condition. With neither winds, atmosphere, nor waters, there were no forces of erosion. A look at the Moon was tantamount to a peek at Genesis.
Man has gazed at the Moon for eons, first with the unaided eye, then with Earth-based magnifying instruments. The Space Age made it possible to probe the Moon more closely. Between 1959 and 1969, a number of Soviet and American unmanned spacecraft photographed and otherwise examined the Moon either by orbiting it or by landing on it. You don't even know about the other "nations" which have likewise visited that orb. Then Man finally set foot on the moon, or so it was stated to you-the-public, when the landing module Apollo II touched down on the Moon's surface as reported on July 20, 1969. I have no wish to contradict what you have been told for it makes NO DIFFERENCE. You have NEVER been an enemy of the Soviet Union and all information has been shared so that no ONE HAS to go anywhere to get very valid information to push off as "first hand". But we will simply go with the "story". We will remember Neil Armstrong and his announcement for all the world to hear: "Houston! Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed!"
LOTS OF LUNAR HYPE
In all, six Apollo space craft presumably set down a total of twelve astronauts on the Moon; the last manned mission was that of Apollo 17, in Dec. 1972. The first one was admittedly intended primarily to "beat the Russians to the Moon", but that didn't work either for the Soviets were already there--waiting--along with a lot of brothers from "out there somewhere" and YOU were invited to withdraw and "don't come back!" The missions became increasingly scientific as the Apollo program progressed. The equipment for the tests and experiments became ever more sophisticated (or at least the reports speculated as much); the choice of landing sites were more scientifically oriented with the aid of surface vehicles, and the length of stay increased from hours to days. Even the crew makeup changed to include, in the last mission, a trained geologist, Harrison Schmitt; his expertise was speculated as invaluable in the on-the-spot selection of rocks and soil to be taken back to Earth, in the description and evaluation of dust and other lunar materials left behind, and in the choice and description of topographic features--hills, valleys, small canyons, escarpments and giant boulders without which the true fact of the Moon would have remained inscrutable. Instruments were left on the Moon to measure and record its phenomena over long periods; deeper soil samples were obtained by drilling into the face of the Moon; but most scientifically precious and rewarding were the 838 pounds of lunar soil and Moon rocks brought back to Earth. Their examination, analysis and study were still in progress as the twentieth anniversary of the first landing was being celebrated.
As an exercise, herein, walk outside your living quarters right now to a place wherein you can touch "earth". This will be far more expansive if you take someone who lives in rural terrain. Simply first look around you--HOW FAR AND HOW MUCH CAN YOU SEE? Pick up a handful of dirt--is it topsoil added to your lawn or natural in location? Now move twenty or thirty feet or even five miles--and look and dig again. Now, let us assume you are in Montana or Texas--have you just learned a single solitary thing about the Grand Canyon? You could utilize a hundred tons of soil from the spot wherein you stand and how much would you learn about the Grand Canyon? How about Yellowstone? The Black Hills? The Aegean Sea? The Sahara Desert? If you don't harken up, dear ones, you are going to have become, experienced and perished without knowing a single worthwhile thing about your passage, how you began or why you ended.
The notion of "Genesis rocks" to be found on the Moon was proposed to NASA by the Nobel Laureate Harold Urey. The so-called Genesis rock that was one of the very first to be picked up on the Moon proved, as the Apollo program progressed, not to be the oldest one. It was "only" some 4.1 billion years old, whereas the rocks later found on the Moon ranged from 3.3 billion-year-old "youngsters" to 4.5 billion-year-old "old-timers". Barring a future discovery of some older rocks, they said, the oldest rocks on the Moon brought its age to within 100 million years (give or take a day or so in either direction) of the estimated age of the Solar System--of 4.6 billion years--which until then was surmised only from the age of meteorites that struck the Earth--and the records of the Sumerians of ancient experience and/or the oral traditional teachers of the "ancients" (aboriginal people).
AGE OF THE MOON
Who cares? Well, in establishing the age of the Moon, the time of its probable creation, only intensified the debate concerning the question of HOW the Moon was created and "Green Cheese" didn't quite cut it.
"The hope of establishing the Moon's origin was a primary scientific rationale for the manned landings of the Apollo project in the 1960's (or so they told YOU), wrote James Gleick in June of 1986 for The New York Times Science Service. It was, however, "the great question that Apollo failed to answer."
How could modern science read an uneroded "Rosetta stone" of the Solar System, so close by, so much studied, landed upon six times of so--and not come up with an answer to the basic question? The answer to the puzzle seems to be that the findings were applied to a set of perceived notions and, because none of these notions is correct, the findings appear to leave the question unanswered.
One of the earliest scientific theories regarding the Moon's origin was published in 1979 by Sir George H. Darwin, second son of Charles Darwin. Whereas his father put forth the theory regarding the origin of species on Earth, Sir George was the first to develop a theory of origins for the Sun-Earth-Moon system based on mathematical analysis and geophysical theory. How many of you readers even knew that Charles Darwin HAD sons? Don't you find this interesting? His, George's, speciality was the study of tides; he therefore conceived of the Moon as having been formed from matter pulled off Earth by solar tides. The Pacific basin was later postulated to be the scar that remained after this "pinching off" of part of Earth's body to form the Moon. Is it not interesting to note that the most unlikely theory--the one of Darwin's evolution, is the controversial absurdity which took root and flourished?
Although it is "a hypothesis now considered unlikely to be true", said the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, the idea reappeared in the twentieth century as one of three contenders for being proved or disproved by the lunar reports as furnished by whoever and whatever was "out there" issuing the information. Given a high-tech name, the Fission Theory, it was revived with a difference. In the reconstructed theory, the simplistic idea of the tidal pull of the Sun was dropped; instead it was proposed that the Earth divided into two bodies while spinning very rapidly during its formation. The spinning was so rapid, that a chunk of the material of which the Earth was forming was thrown off, coalesced at some distance from the bulk of the Earthly matter, and eventually remained orbiting its bigger twin brother as its "permanent" satellite. Why would it be permanent? How do YOU know that you both are not just pieces of a giant cosmic fire-breathing dragon's dung-bits? Is it any more unspeculative or uninspired?
The "thrown-off chunk" theory, whether in its earlier or renewed form, has been conclusively rejected by scientists from various disciplines, which is also routinely the way it is and for no better reason than just THAT. Studies presented at the third Conference on the Origins of Life held in Pacific Palisades, California, in 1970--so it must all be true-- established that tidal forces as the cause of the fission could not account for the origin of the Moon beyond a distance of five Earth radii, whereas the Moon is some 60 Earth radii away from the Earth. All I see proven is that some idiots gave some opinions in the form of "papers" and "abstracts" which have no basis of merit whatsoever--even if they were presented in New Jersey. Also, scientists consider a study by Kurt S. Hansen in 1982 (Review of Geophysics and Space Physics, vol. 20) [eeh-gads, spare us from the other 19] as showing conclusively that the Moon could never have been closer to Earth than 140,000 miles; this would rule out any theory that the Moon was once part of Earth (the Moon is now an average distance of about 240,000 miles from Earth, but this distance has not been constant).
PROPONENTS OF FISSION THEORY
Proponents of the Fission Theory have offered various variants thereof in order to overcome the distance problem, (as well as the truth), which is further constrained by a concept termed the Roche limit (the distance within which the tidal forces overcome the gravitational force). But all variants of the fission theory have been rejected because they violate the laws of the preservation of energy. The theory requires much more angular momentum than has been preserved in the energy that exists to spin the Earth and the Moon around their axes and to orbit around the Sun.
Writing in the book ORIGIN OF THE MOON (1986), John A. Wood of Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics ("A Review of Hypothesis of Formation of Earth's Moon") (this is certainly one of your finer constipated Rockefeller institutions) summed up this constraint thus: "The fission model has very severe dynamic problems: In order to fission, the Earth had to have about four times as much angular momentum as the Earth-Moon system now has. There is no good explanation why the Earth had such an excess of angular momentum in the first place, or where the surplus angular momentum went after fission occurred." My, my, and "Hatonn is confusing?"
The knowledge about the Moon supposedly acquired from the Apollo program added geologists and chemists to the lineup of scientists rejecting the fission theory. The Moon's composition is, in many respects, they say, similar to Earth, yet different in key respects. There is sufficient "kinship" to indicate they are very close relatives, but there are enough differences, as reported, to show they are not twin brothers. This is especially true of the Earth's crust and mantle, from which the moon had to be formed, according to the fission theory. Thus, for example, the Moon has too little of the elements called "siderophile", such as tungsten, phosphorus, cobalt, molybdenum and nickel, compared with the amount of these substances present in the Earth's mantle and crust (even in the Grand Canyon?) and too much of the "refractory" elements such as aluminum, calcium, titanium and uranium (even in the Florida Everglades?). In a highly technical summary of the various findings ("The Origin of the Moon", American Scientist, Sept.-Oct. 1975), Stuart R. Taylor stated: "For all these reasons, it is difficult to match the composition of the bulk of the Moon to that of the terrestrial mantle." (Even in the Philippines??--how about the Mojave Desert??)
The book ORIGIN OF THE MOON, apart from its introductions and summaries, is a collection of papers presented by some sixty-two scientists at the Conference on the Origin of the Moon held at Kona, Hawaii, in October 1984 (a better location?? At least for a vacation!!) --the most comprehensive since the conference twenty years earlier that had mapped out the scientific goals of the unmanned and manned Moon probes. In their papers, the contributing scientists, approaching the problem from various disciplines, invariably reached conclusions against the fission theory. Comparisons of the composition of the upper mantle of the Earth with that of the Moon, Michael J. Drake of the University of Arizona stated, "rigorously exclude" the Rotational Fission hypothesis (even in South Africa?).
CAPTURE THEORY (OR "GOTCHA")
The laws of angular momentum plus the comparisons of the composition of the Moon with that of Earth's mantle also ruled out, after the landings on the moon, the second favored theory, that of Capture. According to this particular theory, the Moon was formed not near the Earth but among the outer planets even beyond them. Somehow thrown off into a vast elliptical orbit around the Sun, it passed too closely to the Earth, was caught by the Earth's gravitational force, and became Earth's satellite. Hot-dog--"gotcha" in action.
This theory, it was pointed out after numerous computer studies, required an extremely slow approach by the Moon toward the Earth. This capture process, not unlike that of the satellites you have sent to presumably be captured and remain in orbit around Mars or Venus, etc., fails to take into account the relative sizes of Earth and Moon. Relative to the Earth, the Moon (about one-eightieth the mass of Earth) is much too large to have been snared for a vast elliptical orbit unless it was moving very slowly; but then, as all the calculation have shown, the result would be not a capture but a collision. This theory was further laid to rest by comparisons of the compositions of the two celestial bodies: the Moon was too similar to the outer bodies to have been so far away from Earth.
Extensive studies of the "Capture" Theory suggested that the Moon would have remained intact only if it had neared Earth, not from way out but from the very same part of the heavens where Earth itself was formed. This conclusion was accepted even by another famous(?) scientist, S. Fred Singer of George Mason University --a proponent of the capture hypothesis-- in his paper ("Origin of the Moon by Capture") presented at the above-mentioned Conference on the Origin of the Moon. "Capture from an eccentric heliocentric orbit is neither feasible nor necessary", he stated; the oddities of the Moon's composition "can be explained in terms of a Moon formed in an Earthlike orbit": the Moon was "captured" while forming near Earth. Do you feel like you are in a "B-Grade" movie plot? So be it for these are CURRENT MODERN PROJECTIONS!
These admissions by proponents of the fission and the capture theories lent support to the third main theory that was previously current, that of Coaccretion, a common birth. This theory has its roots in the hypothesis proposed at the end of the eighteenth century of one Pierre-Simmon de Laplace, who said that the Solar System was born of a nebular gas cloud that coalesced in time to form the Sun and the planets --a hypothesis that has been retained by modern science. Showing that lunar accelerations are dependent on eccentricities in the Earth's orbit, Laplace concluded that the two bodies were formed side by side, first the Earth and then the Moon. The Earth and the Moon, he suggested, were sister planets, partners in a binary, or two-planet, system, in which they orbit the Sun together while one "dances" around the other. Would it be a Waltz or a Texas Two-Step?
That natural satellites, or moons, coalesce from the remainder of the same primordial matter of which their parent plant was formed is now the generally accepted theory of how planets acquired moons and should also apply to Earth and the Moon somehow. As reported, found by the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft, the moons of the outer planets--that had to be formed, by in large, out of the same primordial material as their "parents"--are both sufficiently akin to their parent planets and at the same time reveal individual characteristics "children" do; this might well be true also for the basic similarities and sufficient dissimilarities between the Earth and the Moon--at least this does begin to enter the realm of possibilities.
ALSO REJECT THIS THEORY
What makes scientists now reject this theory when it is applied to the Earth and the Moon in their relative sizes? The Moon is simply too large relative to the Earth--not only about one-eightieth of its mass but about one quarter of its diameter. This relationship is all out of proportion to what is KNOWN to be elsewhere in the Solar System. When the mass of all the moons of each planet (excluding Pluto) is given as a ratio of the planet's mass, the results clearly present the anomaly in point. A comparison of the relative sizes of the largest moon of each of the other planets with the size of the Moon relative to Earth shows great disproportion and too much angular momentum in the combined Earth-Moon system to readily support the Binary Planets Hypothesis.
What you now end up in conclusion of the above is that all three basic theories are unable to meet some of the required criteria to the point that you can wonder how Earth ended up with its satellite at all. Such a conclusion, in fact, does not bother some; they point to the presumed fact that none of the terrestrial planets (other than Earth) have satellites: the two tiny bodies that orbit Mars are, all are agreed, captured asteroids. If conditions in this Solar System were such that none of the planets formed between the Sun and Mars (inclusive) obtained satellites in any one of the considered methods--Fission, Capture, Coaccretion--should not Earth, too, being within this moonless zone, have been without a moon? But there remains the obvious fact that Earth as you know it and wherein you CAN know it at all, does have a moon, and an extremely large one at that. So might it not be wise to effort to account for that?
Well Dharma, we won't "account" for it at this sitting for I need you elsewhere and you need a respite from keyboard. We need to finish tape 6 please before continuing on with writing today. Thank you for your patience. Don't concern about your getting behind in the work-load. We will take what we can as we can do so. Mankind must also make their priorities and "their" priorities are not "your priorities. Thank you.
Hatonn to stand by. Salu.
Source: THE PHOENIX LIBERATOR, June 30, 1992, Volume
THANK YOU Rocky Montana